Fucking feint-heart, we've got an army of 70,000 Muslims poised to batter IS as soon as the vote goes through you know.Originally Posted by Yevrah
Fucking feint-heart, we've got an army of 70,000 Muslims poised to batter IS as soon as the vote goes through you know.
I don't think he's ever expressed that view at all.
I'm sure his views on when violence should be used are more restricted than Cameron et al. but that's a bit different.
The problem with Jezza isn't whether you agree with him or not, it's that he has failed to convince his own Shadow Cabinet (or many of his own MPs) that as their leader they should be backing his position (or adjusting/moderating his position into an effective unified opposition one that they can back). Instead of being frank about it and taking the John Major 'back me or sack me' route - or even the much easier 'back me or fuck off' route - he has attempted with incredible incompetence to shore up his own position by appealing to the people that do agree with him, 'the members'. The way he has done this is by sending an email to 'the members' (and how many old people etc does this method exclude? Confirmation bias? Completely unscientific, might as well ask people in the high street) and asking them whether they agree with him or not. He has then claimed to have received thousands of emails and by checking 100 of these emails has declared that '80% of the members back me' (although he has since revised this down to 'around 75%').
In such a way he has in effect accused his own MPs and Shadow Cabinet members of being traitors to the party, and to him, simply because they don't agree with him. That's not how leadership of a serious democratic party works unfortunately. The only way out of this position was to call a free vote, which undermines his own position massively.
As a result any hope of his position, or any other position being effectively communicated in opposition to the Government's policy has been lost, and it's all because he is a fucking shambles.
He has managed this appalling, as Jim has outlined. Corbyn and his allies continue to cite "his mandate". This is not sustainable. You cannot treat your shadow cabinet like they don't matter, and then turn a blind eye whilst your own personal pressure group mobilise to try and pressure MPs into agreeing with your view. If he can't persuade his shadow cabinet, or the party, to adopt a unified position then he's a leader in name only. You absolutely cannot try and shore up your supposed support by a sample of the members on an issue of war and peace.
It's fucking useless. You need an effective opposition - the SNP are doing a much better job, even though I think they're a collection of wet blankets.
5 years down the line, having somehow clung onto the leadership, and with Britain mired in another costly/pointless/unpopular war in the Middle East, this is going to look like a masterstroke. God help us (you).
Saying they're not an effective opposition is a bit of a weird thing to say, considering the impact they had on the Tories backtracking on police funding and tax credits within the last couple of weeks alone.
They had no impact on tax credits, it was the House of Lords that saw sense with that.
It's not that the MPs don't agree with him, it's that they don't agree with all the people that voted for him. You can lol at his 'mandate' all you like, but until half a million centrists sign up and tip the balance of membership support then you're stuck with it ('it' not necessarily defined as Jeremy Corbyn, since some other pinko would win a repeat vote). If all these twats can't accept the Labour Party as a union-funded, left-wing party then what is actually stopping them from leaving?
The 'moderates' don't own the party. The members and the donors do. If you can't convert them then your profile, which is wholly-dependent on your affiliation with the Labour Party brand, as a 'Big Name' is irrelevant. You're in the wrong party. If Michael Gove (who worships Tony Blair more than any Labour politician) crossed the floor and joined the Labour Party, and then set about telling them what to do, he would promptly be told to go fuck himself. How is 'Chuka' any different?
Yeah but they don't work in a vacuum, and the way he stoked the fire (the 6 questions about it in PMQs spring to mind) will have done a fair bit to hammer home to your average Barry Shitpeas how much they'd have fucked people over and I imagine will given Labour a load more supporters with people on the street as a result.
I mean, if I go into my local shop on the estate and start asking people who voted Tory why they voted for them, I doubt they're gonna harp on about trickle down and supply side economics. I think Corbyn did a great job of showing them up as not really being all that bothered about the impact it had on working families - or at least not being able to explain the impact it would have honestly, which basically seems like the same thing. He did so in a way that will have been obvious to people watching it too.
Labour voted down the only Commons motion that would have stopped tax credits, so them claiming to be responsible for the U-turn got a good lol from me last week. That anybody is buying it gets another I guess.
So good to see that Cameron has decided that because Jeremy is calling for calm, he's a terrorist sympathiser. I can't imagine what's wrong with asking what our plan is, if there is even a plan given how well Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya worked out for us. But lets face it, Cameron just wants to wave his dick on the global stage and has decided anyone not with him is a member of The Enemy.
It is a bit unseemly.
Cameron is definitely coming across a lot worse these days. Presumably this is his actual personality showing through more due to not having to face another election.
Always heard that on a personal level, Cameron is a twat and Osborne is a gent.
You're all giving Corbyn far, far too much credit. Especially you, Lewis. If the party defines itself only in terms of its members and donors, then very soon those will be the only people voting for it. Broadening its appeal beyond the end of its own nose is exactly why the Conservatives have been successful over the years. If they did a Labour style rule change for Bill Cash and a load of 75 year old racists to take over it would quickly tank.
Fallon is doing my head in as well, the scaremongering little shit. Almost wishing on a terrorist attack over here.
This is the same post you've made about 10 times now. It might be better if you addressed the point being made to you.
He's putting his principles above everything else and it's breaking people's minds. Long may it continue; fuck the power-chasing, career politicians.
Like fuck is he doing anything of the sort. He's not even Tony Benn. He's just an idiot rabbit caught in the headlights.
Also, much as it may be politically inept for Dave to say so, he IS a terrorist sympathiser.
Always looks quite calm to me. It's probably that that riles you up so much.
He doesn't rile me up. I hope he stays for years. He's practically ensuring that I'll be old and grey before I see another left wing government.
I doubt he wants to do this for more than a couple of years.
I doubt he wants to do it at all. He looks racked with pain every time I see him, although 66 years of not having a sense of humour will do that to you too. You all want him to be something he's not. The issue is more that the party is now constitutionally controlled by a load of crusty students and Trotskyists, and will therefore never be able to do anything sensible ever again.
He didn't look like a rabbit caught in the headlights on any level whatsoever on Andrew Marr yesterday. He looked as calm as a Hindu cow and explain his point of view very clearly and without emotion.
How've you decided he's got no sense of humour?
How do I know anything about anyone?
I don't know. Do you just guess?
Yup. Right now I'm going to guess that you go to fetish clubs and support Sheffield United. My guess is based on well documented information, just like it's well documented that Jezza Corbz is drier than three cream crackers in the Atacama.
The Thirteen Year Unpleasantness aside, Labour has always defined itself only in terms of its members and donors (where as Conservatism is inherently reactive). It may simply be that in 2015 there is no longer any need for a union-funded, left-wing party, in which case why not just leave the die-hards to figure that out for themselves? If you can join a party you can leave a party.
Are you suggesting a split? That sounds an excellent idea. Or they could join the Lib Dems.
Corbyn started his PRINCIPLED debate on Syria by demanding that Dave apologise for calling him a terrorist sympathiser, which Dave is heroically not doing so far. Remember, Labour, it's always about the outrage.
It's not though, is it. You said yourself that you'd only heard that Cameron is a twat and Osbourne is lovely in real life, as opposed to how it is in politics. Just hearsay though, because obviously you don't actually know them. Not sure how it's different with Corbyn.
Based on that logic I am unable to make any personality judgement about any public figure, either current or historical, under any circumstances.
I've read all over the place that he doesn't have a sense of humour, so until I see better evidence to the contrary I'm running with him not having a sense of humour.
Agreed.
I just found it weird that you're happy to reserve judgement or for Osbourne and Cameron, or at least acknowledge that you don't really know either way, whereas for Corbyn it's different.
I forgot how much childish bickering there actually was at these debates.
The Dave/Osborne comment was indicating that I do know either way.
My whole bag here is that you all seem desperate for Corbyn to have some sort of moral high ground that he really doesn't have.
Of course he should be asked to apologise - It's not about being OUTRAGED, it's about Cameron having to apologise for making very distasteful comments.
You're becoming a littler Sebo here, Jimmy.
So you'd rather MPs debated insults that they have been slinging at each other than the rights and wrongs of possible air strikes on Syria? You must be just as principled as Jez.
So now you want them to debate???
They asked for an apology then moved on, it took a matter of minutes.
To be fair it's well into double figures now the number of times an apology has been mentioned.
90 minutes in the SNP are still screaming for one, says twitter.
We are now calling them Daesh, I hear.
More bollocks being spouted right now about it.
My girlfriend just asked me what I was watching. After I explained, she asked "but who is debating". I explained about Labour and Conservatives, to which she bemusedly replied "Is there anyone from Syria there debating?"....
Aye, Jimmy will be fuming that the debate is being side-tracked. A conservative chump just spent 10 minutes congratulating himself.
'Daesh' is absolute twaddle. It's the same thing as Isis but using Arabic letters. Anyone bringing it up in this debate should be sent to the Tower.
It's quite a nice sounding name. Rolls off the tongue.
Why is the Conservative side of the house half empty? Shouldn't everybody not be there?
They don't care about being called Daesh. They even use it themselves.
Not necessarily. They might not have a contribution to the debate and might be doing constituency work instead. They'll all rock up to vote.
Agree with Julian Lewis here-
We have a choice between very nasty authoritarians and Islamist totalitarians. There is no third way.
Yvette Cooper looks like she's spent the last two months working her way through a pallet of Jaffa Cakes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote